You suggested the problem was "another gangster separatist region that no one recognizes and only exists due to support from Moscow and criminal proceeds." When it was suggested that local productivity (factories) could be used to support the region, you said, "If no one recognizes that state or trades with it except Moscow, then those factories and industry are not going to be worth much." Based upon the internal logic of your own commentary and nothing else, if the West wanted to be "pragmatic" then it would solve the problem you're posing by simply recognizing and trading with the states in question, which would mean the regions didn't have to rely exclusively upon criminality and support from Moscow, which would mean they wouldn't become "another gangster separatist region that no one recognizes and only exists due to support from Moscow and criminal proceeds." You're the one who said these things, not me.

Leon wrote:

Also, these places are formed as a reaction against the west, and are instigated/sponsored by Russia against countries that are aligning with The west in some way. Why, given these circumstances, would the west want to work with these places?

Your reference to the PRC and ROC is not apt. The PRC is far too big and important to ignore, and when we opened to them they were our enemies enemy. The opposite is true of these places.

I'm not talking about the motivation (which is what you're describing here), I'm talking about the ability. The logic is simple. If "big, important" China isn't enough to stop us from having a trade relationship with Taiwan, "not big, less important" Ukraine isn't enough to stop us from having trade relationships with these parties either.

I'm pretty indifferent to this overall topic to be honest. It's the internal inconsistency in your narrative that lured me into participating, nothing more. Think it over. Or don't.

Kosovo suffered from genocide..the group in Eastern Ukraine .... have not been targeted or killed by the regime systematically

So now genocide is a pre-requisite for a legitimate independence movement?

Better tell that to Scotland.

In reality all it takes is having a population wherein the majority wants to break away. Ethnic or linguistic differences only strengthen the cause. Russians were not treated well by the ethnic Ukrainian government.

Quote:

Donetsk will never be accepted by the wider world

Why accept Kosovo but not Donetsk? The mechanism has been entirely the same. America is using double standards because they don't want regions allying with Russia.

Breakaway from Russia= we'll help you
Ally with Russia= you're a "rogue state"

You suggested the problem was "another gangster separatist region that no one recognizes and only exists due to support from Moscow and criminal proceeds." When it was suggested that local productivity (factories) could be used to support the region, you said, "If no one recognizes that state or trades with it except Moscow, then those factories and industry are not going to be worth much." Based upon the internal logic of your own commentary and nothing else, if the West wanted to be "pragmatic" then it would solve the problem you're posing by simply recognizing and trading with the states in question, which would mean the regions didn't have to rely exclusively upon criminality and support from Moscow, which would mean they wouldn't become "another gangster separatist region that no one recognizes and only exists due to support from Moscow and criminal proceeds." You're the one who said these things, not me.

Leon wrote:

Also, these places are formed as a reaction against the west, and are instigated/sponsored by Russia against countries that are aligning with The west in some way. Why, given these circumstances, would the west want to work with these places?

At this point I'm not sure that taking actions that would allow the revolution to sustain itself is humanitarian. They've been around for less than a year and have already shot down a plane. They have not established a purpose for themselves beyond not wanting to be in Ukraine and have not shown a competence for much beyond violence. It's not like they were suffering under the new regime before they took up arms.

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

Your reference to the PRC and ROC is not apt. The PRC is far too big and important to ignore, and when we opened to them they were our enemies enemy. The opposite is true of these places.

I'm not talking about the motivation (which is what you're describing here), I'm talking about the ability. The logic is simple. If "big, important" China isn't enough to stop us from having a trade relationship with Taiwan, "not big, less important" Ukraine isn't enough to stop us from having trade relationships with these parties either.

I'm pretty indifferent to this overall topic to be honest. It's the internal inconsistency in your narrative that lured me into participating, nothing more. Think it over. Or don't.

Sure the west has the ability to do lots of things, but motivation and interest are important. Without looking at the right or wrong of what each actor does, because there is lots of wrong and not so much right, but looking at what has historically happened in each these cases this revolution will end up poorly and benefit very few people. The few people who do benefit will benefit a lot. If this rebellion was more of a reaction against actual repression instead of what appears to be a proxy conflict and land grab- notice how I'm not specifying sides here- perhaps the outcome would be different

Kosovo suffered from genocide..the group in Eastern Ukraine .... have not been targeted or killed by the regime systematically

So now genocide is a pre-requisite for a legitimate independence movement?

Better tell that to Scotland.

In reality all it takes is having a population wherein the majority wants to break away. Ethnic or linguistic differences only strengthen the cause. Russians were not treated well by the ethnic Ukrainian government.

Quote:

Donetsk will never be accepted by the wider world

Why accept Kosovo but not Donetsk? The mechanism has been entirely the same. America is using double standards because they don't want regions allying with Russia.

Breakaway from Russia= we'll help you
Ally with Russia= you're a "rogue state"

.. surely the game is fairly obvious by now, even to you?

Funny, the false equivalences. An armed insurrection/proxy war is the same as peaceful referendum? Either you are obtuse or I don't know what. I find the last sentence ironic.

IF you reject the Crimea vote b/c of the soldiers and violence THEN you must also reject the vote that brought the Democratically Elected Progressive Government of Flowers and Puppies into power. Right or wrong?

IF you reject the Crimea vote b/c of the soldiers and violence THEN you must also reject the vote that brought the Democratically Elected Progressive Government of Flowers and Puppies into power. Right or wrong?

Well, now you are just being ridiculous. I'll think of something and type it out tomorrow about this.

A coup does not require a military, Leon. You going to get around to answering the question or shall I move on?

I've been busy. My opinions are a bit confused at the moment because I met with officials from Georgia and Azerbaijan in the past two days, both countries that have separatist regions supported by Moscow so I need some time to digest what they said and consider the bias, etc.

One key difference, Eastern Ukrainians didn't have an election, they had a referendum with no neutral or status quo options and the legitimacy of the referendum is questionable at best. There were international election monitors in Ukraine and not in Eastern Ukraine, etc.

Also, I just retread your question. I reject the Crimea vote because the chances that it it's free or fair or whatever is slim. I also don't think that the vote really matters, that was just cosmetic stuff. This is Russian grand strategy and has been, and should be viewed through that lens, all this revolution stuff is a smokescreen.

It's not like this is a new phenomenon, a plan for this action probably existed for a long time, including the separatist bit.

According to Putin, the plan to invade Georgia was prepared in advance and “the Russian side acted within the framework of that plan.” The General Staff of the Armed Forces prepared the plan of military action against Georgia “at the end of 2006, and I authorized it in 2007,” continued Putin. According to the plan, heavy weaponry and troops were prepared and mobilized for the coming invasion. As part of the Russian Defense Ministry plan, Ossetian separatist forces were trained and armed to act as auxiliary forces in the preplanned engagement with the Georgian military. According to Putin, “Our military specialists believed they [Ossetian separatist militias] could not provide assistance in a clash of regular armies, but they turned out to be much needed.”